Corrado's Wine Diary

2004 Kent Rasmussen Souzão Esoterica

2008-06-09T20:54:00.000-07:00

I like Kent, I've loved his Petite Sirahs, and I think it's great that he forges his own path working with unusual single-varietal wines like this Souzão. For that reason, I'd urge you check out other reviews in CellarTracker because I acknowledge that this review isn't representative of the status quo.

Leading off with the business end of the review...

5/5: Color was still very saturated and garnet at the edges.
8/15: Nose was almost completely absent at all phases of tasting from a variety of Mondavi & Riedel stemware over two nights of tasting.
6/10: Entry is almost creamy, which is quickly rocked back to reality when the tannins catch up with baker's chocolate, cranberry, and minerality.
7/10: The finish grows like an angry, rioting mob of tannin, chocolate, cassis, and oak and really dominates the tasting experience.
2/5: Based on the absence of fruit, I can't see the aging potential based on this bottle.
2/5: Overall, this wine came off like the last shot out of a Roman candle. With a large-boweled glass, the wine drank alright despite the thick, tannic assault. It wasn't bad, but other than being bold, it wasn't particularly noteworthy either and lacked dimension.

...which resulted in a paltry 80/100 points, which may be generous. This tastes like a well made wine that's simply just gone as dumb as Jessica Simpson. Like the the exclamation following Frank Costanza's poignant dinner table question, "Who's having sex with the hen?!?" something's missing! At this point, I'm not sure if it's better to drink the other bottle soon or sit on it for a year and hope for something magical to happen.

2002 Madonlina Toccata

2008-01-23T19:33:00.000-08:00

COLOR: 5/5 - Solid maroon color, having the appearance of a lighter bodied wine.
NOSE: 11/15 - Nose had some good punch right out of the bottle, but this blew off within an hour. What was initially pruney & cola-ish has turned around and taken on more watermelon and apple aromas with blackberry and vanilla.
FLAVOR: 8/10 - Good expansion across the palate, but there are some issues with balance. Flavors of blackberry, cocoa, and vanilla aren't supported by the thin mouthfeel.
FINISH: 6/10 - Finish starts sharply, sourly, and twists around some berry fruits, melon, and, occasionally, butter.
POTENTIAL: 3/5 - Has the feel of a wine that will be better in 6 months and drink for a few years. A little taming of the tannins will go a long way toward bringing balance to this wine.
OVERALL: 3/5 - A decent, moderately interesting wine. Really changed a lot in a few hours of being open, paired well with the veggie lasagna it accompanied at dinner and drinks adequately alone as well. 86 Points.

I liked this wine and expected this to come out more like an 88 point wine, but the schizophrenic nose and weak finish hurt the scoring. Not at all disappointed to have 5 more bottles in the cellar. Great wine for tomato-based foods.

N.V. Pinot Evil (or "How to make 10,000 cases of wine from 5,000 cases of juice)

2008-01-22T20:09:00.000-08:00

COLOR: 5/5 - Translucent strawberry color.
NOSE: 6/15 - Initially there was virtually nothing except for a whiff of alcohol. After being open for a few hours there's still very little on the nose. What nose there is is yeasty and tinny.
FLAVOR: 4/10 - Thin, thin, thin. Very little flavor, astringent, with underlying strawberry and fig. Makes you want to chug the glass with the hope of passing enough wine over your palate to taste SOMETHING.
FINISH: 5/10 - Short, unimpressive finish of watered down strawberry and raspberry. POTENTIAL: 1/5 - No fruit, weak structure. Not past it's prime in terms of aging, I just don't think there *is* a prime for this wine.
OVERALL: 1/5 - Worst Pinot Noir I can recall. Other than the color, there was nothing remotely Pinot Noirish about this. It drinks like watered down unsweetened strawberry kool-aid with a healthy dose of Absolut Kurant.

This is wasted money AT ANY PRICE. This bottle was a gift and I still feel like I overpayed. It really reminds me of Jello shots from my college days were a 'clever' roommate used Absolut Kurant vodka with watermelon Jello. It was terrible (but got you a buzz).

As a FYI, I make every effort to write my reviews & score a wine without looking at other reviews. Rating a good wine is much easier than rating a bad wine. Trying to objectively score a weak offering like this definitely makes you look in parts of the rating spectrum you don't normally venture into, so it becomes an exercise in trying to re-set the mental expectation for what a zero would be and determine where the current sample rates.

After all of that, my 72 point rating for this wine came out dead-on the CellarTracker average (range of scores was 52 to 85 points). It was a wine that didn't have a whole lot actively bad about it, but had little (if anything) good going for it.

2006 Standing Stone Vidal Ice

2008-01-13T20:57:00.000-08:00

Wow. Where did 2007 go? First blog of 2008, hopefully I'll be a little bit better about posting new info & get some different types of posts up (not JUST reviews). But for now, just reviews. :)

Drinking on the second night, from the fridge, using a Fume Blanc glass.
COLOR: 5/5 - Thick, glossy, amber. Little doubt what's in the glass.
NOSE: 12/15 - Candy apple, apricot, pineapple, and honeydew melon come through on a heavy nose.
FLAVOR: 8/10 - Mouthfeel is ridiculous; luxurious, decadent nectar of pineapple, green apple, and peach with nice acidity. Residual sugar may have been left a bit too high. For the intial taste, the sweet was a bit overpowering.
FINISH: 8/10 - Remarkably, no cloying qualities. Acidity is almost excessive without actually getting there, keeping this ice-style wine balanced. Flavors of peach, apricot, and pineapple linger very gingerly on the palate for a long finish.
POTENTIAL: 3/5 - Always tough to say with a relative unknown (and a 'dessert' wine at that), but judging from how this improved over night, I'd wager this will actually get better in the coming years.
OVERALL: 4/5 - This picked up quite a few 'gut rating' points over night. Initially there were some sour notes that really didn't jibe well with the other elements, but much of the unpleasantness (acidic, metallic) qualities have disappeared overnight. 90+ points (this is growing on me...)

At this point in time, any wine like this gets held up to the standard of a 2001 Vin de Constance (South African Muscat dessert wine) that is truly a wine to experience. It's everything the Vidal Ice is, but more better smoother. The Vidal Ice is simple and straightforward by comparison.

I likely would have dropped 86 points on this last night based on overall lack of balance and muted flavors. It really pulled a 180 in the fridge overnight.

2003 Hogue Cellars Merlot Columbia Valley

2007-11-23T23:02:00.000-08:00

COLOR: 5/5 - More purple than red; very saturated.
NOSE: 11/15 - Initially there was lot of bacony goodness on the nose. That blew off pretty quickly and was left with muted cherry and leather. After 3 hours, vitually no nose. Points given for initial impression.
FLAVOR: 7/10 - Very straight-forward blackberry, black pepper, and leather.
FINISH: 6/10 - Not much going on with the very short finish. Echos of the flavors just slide away leaving nothing behind.
POTENTIAL: 2/5 - Not a lot here that indicates any advantages to holding on to this any longer.
OVERALL: 2/5 - Maybe past its prime, this wine just couldn't get out of its own way. Overpowered by a very simple red sauce with pasta and completely collapsed within a few hours of being open. This bottle definitely needed to be decanted; there was a considerable build-up of sediment in the bottle. Not a bad wine, very light-fare friendly.
** SCORE: 83/100 **

I'm really surprised where this wine came out. My first 'great' (don't laugh) experience with wine came probably 10 years ago in my early 20's at a friend's wedding where I had a Hogue Riesling. I knew nothing about wine and they had the Hogue on the all the tables. I grooved to the slender bottle and marveled at the synthetic 'cork.'

Fast forward to when I picked up a mixed half-case of Hogue wines around a year ago (in-store sale + Mail-In Rebate = cheeeeeep wine!) CellarTracker told me to drink this wine before it's time had passed, so it came outta the cellar tonight... and just didn't do it for me. The nose right out of the bottle saved this from being an 82 point (or lower) wine.

As I continue to finish the glass/bottle (1+ glasses went into the pasta sauce tonight) and ramble on, I came up with an imperfect metaphor for the wine as it's drinking now -- purple dry-erase marker. Imperfect because it's not all vapory like a marker, but it's got this fake essence about it and, well, something that evidently reminds me of being in a white-boarding session at work.

2004 Generations of Sonoma Winery Highway 12 Serres Ranch

2007-11-14T21:14:00.000-08:00

COLOR: 5/5 - Dark ruby red colored right to the edges.
NOSE: 12/15 - All elements of this wine are apparent on the nose -- berry jam Cab Sauvignon and vegetal Cab Franc are present, but an earthy Merlot nose dominates.
FLAVOR: 8/10 - Strong, bold flavors. Still somewhat tannic, but reasonably in balance with the fruit and other flavors in the wine.
FINISH: 7/10 - Finishes as sour cherry, dark chocolate, and still a bit tannin-dry.
POTENTIAL: 3/5 - Good structure, strong tannin, and strong fruit should result in a wine with some moderate cellarability.
OVERALL: 3/5 - Probably still needs a bit more time for the tannins to tame and mellow on the finish, but there's a nice blend of earthy and jammy flavors in this that make it a food-friendly wine as well as a good drink-alone (or with friends) wine.

Score: 88/100

I really got down with the blending here. I thought that the equal parts of CS, CF, and Merlot were deftly pulled together and created a wonderful drinking wine that showed each grape well.

2004 Parker Station Pinot Noir

2007-11-07T21:43:00.000-08:00

Parker Station Pinot Noir came up from the cellar tonight. Should've brought it up a week ago for Halloween 'cause MAN is this a scary wine!

78/100-
COLOR: 4/5 - Translucent, light cranberry red, dingy around the edges.
NOSE: 10/15 - Tight nose at first that begins to open after a few hours. It's somewhat rubbery, the alcohol is noticeable, and both overwhelm the raspberry and strawberry that are there.
FLAVOR: 5/10 - At first shot, there's something there, but it disappears rapidly. Bitter rhubarb is the dominant fruit flavor, but the wine tastes alcoholic and watered down and falls apart like a house of cards in about 3 seconds.
FINISH: 6/10 - Best part of the finish is that it's very short. The thin, bitter flavor carries into the finish and then just disappears.
POTENTIAL: 2/5 - Doesn't seem to have enough fruit character to survive more time it the cellar.
OVERALL: 1/5 - Not even an average Pinot Noir. Nose is by far the best aspect of this wine at 'average' and the balance, mouthfeel, flavor, and finish border on unpleasant. A poor example of the varietal, even at this low price point.

2005 Caliterra Cabernet Sauvignon

2007-11-05T19:20:00.000-08:00

Interesting wine, purchased from WTSO.com during their last marathon. I've learned the hard way *cough*Palandri*cough* not to trust their talk-up reviews of cheap wines, so I bought this expecting a $8 wine and in that light I wasn't disappointed.

It was a good QPR purchase and it's a nice change of pace from the Califruitia wines that dominate my cellar. That said, it's a squarely average wine that's just awkward.

82/100-
COLOR: 5/5 - Nice traditional burgundy color.
NOSE: 10/15 - Dirty, bacony nose with some smoke with elderberry/boysenberry deep down. Not overly expressive.
FLAVOR: 7/10 - Flavors are earthy, woody, with the smokiness from the nose coming through on the mid palate. Balance is suspect with the tannins jumping right out immediately.
FINISH: 6/10 - Oaky finish at first, replaced by a tannic bite again. Ends smokey.
POTENTIAL: 2/5 - While there's a prominent tannin character to this wine, there really isn't a whole lot of fruit that's begging to come out. Might be interesting to see what happens to this in a few years. Might not improve beyond where it is today.
OVERALL: 2/5 - Considered without regard to price, this is an okay bottle of wine. For an $8 wine, it's pretty decent. It would be a much better food-wine than a quaffing wine that would pair well with hearty fare (think shepherd's pie).

2002 Kent Rasmussen Petite Sirah

2007-10-30T21:02:00.000-07:00

Absolutely fell in love with this wine. Deep, dark, broad, layered, I could see myself getting into trouble by drinking the whole damn bottle in a single setting!

COLOR: 5/5 - Deep, dark, inky red right out to the edges. Julia Robertsesque legs in the glass.
NOSE: 13/15 - Effusive nose of black currant, mint (think Wrigley's Winterfresh), vanilla, licorice, and old leather just swirl and frolic from the glass into the deepest corners of your brain.
FLAVOR: 9/10 - Take small sips. This wine explodes on your palate and muscles its way into every nook and cranny in your mouth. I get some of the minty licorice flavors as well, but this is where the fruit starts coming in with black currant and (maybe?) pomegranate.
FINISH: 8/10 - I'm not sure if it's a trick of the alcohol or if there's bit more residual sugar in this than a typical Petite Sirah, but there's an initial sweetness (relatively speaking) at the beginning of the finish. A waning candied raspberry evolves through a gradual puckering reprises of currant through the licorice mint and ends with a small-berry glow (currant, elderberry).
POTENTIAL: 4/5 - Petite Sirahs are the Sean Connerys of the wine world -- the only improve with age and this clearly has the quality and stamina to last 20+ years in a good cellar.
OVERALL: 4/5 - Why not 5/5? It's not perfect! The sweet caught me off guard and I'm still not sure what to do with it. In the 2 hours I've had it open it's started to fall apart a little bit on the mid palate and pick up a tannic edge. If you open this with two other people and pop & pour I guarantee you the bottle will disappear long before it starts to slide... and even now it's a DYNAMITE glass of wine.

It starts here. It starts now.

2007-10-28T21:03:00.000-07:00

Well, put enough wine in this Vermonter and things like this happen.

I have a blog.

This comes with the crowning of the Boston Red Sox as the 2007 World Series Champions. As such, I will dishonor this maiden posting with a repeat tasting of a precious NV 21 yr old Glengoyne Singlemalt scotch that presided over the Sox's 2004 Championship and has only been cracked once since then. With this tasting, I have enough for MAYBE 2 more championships. I'm willing to make the Big Purchase and pick up another bottle if the Boys from Beantown can keep it going.

So this bottle is special. It's the last man standing from a trip to Scotland in 2002. There have been many since and none its equal. Scoring will follow my typical wine rubric (sans "Potential" for hopefully obvious reasons):

94/100
COLOR: 5/5 - Pure 24k gold in a glass.
NOSE: 13/15 - Strong, dominant butterscotch on the nose with a bit of ripe apple.
FLAVOR: 8/10 - Knowing there's not a bit of peat in this malt, I find myself imagining it there, yet not missing it. My wine-trained palate cannot describe the flavors of this smooth drinking highland malt other than to say it's truly a lowland styled whiskey. Honeydew Melon?
FINISH: 9/10 - Minerality, toast, and butterscotch all blend together at the end to give an outstanding, smooth, lingering, enticing finish.
OVERALL: 9/10 - It's smooth. It's flavorful. It's an outstanding malt that's well made. Heck you could 'cellar' this for 20 years, but you're only hurting yourself, chief! Drink now & drink often. Slainte!